Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.
Many would assert that laws should be flexible to adapt to diverse environments. In some senses, it is undeniable that laws need to evolve to cater to different times and places. However, focusing solely on the flexibility of laws can overlook the importance of public reliance and the need for foundational rights that society must maintain.
Admittedly, few would disagree that adapting laws is crucial for societal cohesion. When it comes to rapidly evolving societies, especially with swift technological advancements, flexible laws can better address the needs of citizens and businesses than rigid ones. Blockchain regulations, for example, which have evolved in response to new financial landscapes, ensure that individuals remain within the confines of the law by allowing for adaptable legal standards. The point here is that laws that evolve based on societal needs can enhance the community's well-being.
Nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that law flexibility should always be the top priority. Considering the public's reliance on laws, frequent amendments might disrupt social stability. In fact, multiple new regulations regarding technologies like smartphones left many baffled, as constant shifts in telecommunication fee policies diminished trust in the legal system. This indicates that frequent legal changes might not always promote societal cohesion.
Moreover, the preservation of laws is essential when discussing foundational rights. Take into account basic rights about liberty, which are fundamental to individuals. Instead of constantly amending these rights, a more conservative approach can help protect individuals from potential government overreach. This also implies that the excessive emphasis on flexibility should be reevaluated.
To sum up, despite the benefits of adaptable laws, public reliance and foundational rights illuminate for us that constant legal flexibility might not always be advantageous. Taken together, I cannot fully agree with the idea that laws should always be flexible. Only if we were to ignore the importance of public trust and fundamental rights could we conclude that laws should invariably be adaptable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-10-21 | Celestina Asantewaa | 50 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2024-01-16 | jenas | 50 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
| 2023-12-29 | mei_unavailable | 58 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 54
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 58
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 66
- In any profession business politics education government those in power should step down after five years 16
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 116, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...ys be the top priority. Considering the publics reliance on laws, frequent amendments m...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, well, for example, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1869.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 321.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82242990654 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08367157557 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.598130841121 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5338624305 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.833333333 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8333333333 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61111111111 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253541239004 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0852884778454 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721548091694 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147616324047 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0528937517507 0.0667264976115 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.18 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.38706741573 119% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 116, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'publics'' or 'public's'?
Suggestion: publics'; public's
...ys be the top priority. Considering the publics reliance on laws, frequent amendments m...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, well, for example, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 58.6224719101 68% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1869.0 2235.4752809 84% => OK
No of words: 321.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.82242990654 5.05705443957 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08367157557 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.598130841121 0.4932671777 121% => OK
syllable_count: 574.2 704.065955056 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.5338624305 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.833333333 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8333333333 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61111111111 5.21951772744 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253541239004 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0852884778454 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721548091694 0.0758088955206 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147616324047 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0528937517507 0.0667264976115 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.3 48.8420337079 76% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.18 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.99 8.38706741573 119% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.